ADNEX Model Research Articles

Simple rules, O-RADS, ADNEX and SRR model: Single oncologic center validation of diagnostic predictive models alone and combined (two-step strategy) to estimate the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses and ovarian tumors

ObjectiveTo compare performance of Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX model), Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), Simple Rules Risk (SRR) assessment and the two-step strategy based on the application of Simple Rules (SR) followed by SRR and SR followed by ADNEX in the pre-operative discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses (AMs). MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study from January-2018 to December-2021 in which consecutive patients with at AMs were recruited. Accuracy metrics included sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for ADNEX, O-RADS and SRR. When SR was inconclusive a “two-step strategy” was adopted applying SR + ADNEX model and SR + SRR assessment. ResultsA total of 514 women were included, 400 (77.8%) had a benign ovarian tumor and 114 (22.2%) had a malignant tumor. At a threshold malignancy risk of >10%, the SE and SP of ADNEX model, O-RADS and SRR were: 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86–0.96) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85–0.91); 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87–0.97) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.96–0.92); 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80–0.93) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80–0.87), respectively. When we applied SR, 109 (21.2%) cases resulted inconclusive. The SE and SP of two-step strategy SR + SRR assessment and SR + ADNEX model were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80–0.93) and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89–0.94), SR + ADNEX model 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83–0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90–0.96), respectively. ConclusionsO-RADS presented the highest SE, similar to ADNEX model and SR + ADNEX model. However, the SR + ADNEX model presented the higher performance accuracy with the higher SP and PPV. This two-step strategy, SR and ADNEX model applicated to inconclusive SR, is convenient for clinical evaluation.

Application of Ultrasound Scores (Subjective Assessment, Simple Rules Risk Assessment, ADNEX Model, O-RADS) to Adnexal Masses of Difficult Classification.

Ultrasound features help to differentiate benign from malignant masses, and some of them are included in the ultrasound (US) scores. The main aim of this work is to describe the ultrasound features of certain adnexal masses of difficult classification and to analyse them according to the most frequently used US scores. Retrospective studies of adnexal lesions are difficult to classify by US scores in women undergoing surgery. Ultrasound characteristics were analysed, and masses were classified according to the Subjective Assessment of the ultrasonographer (SA) and other US scores (IOTA Simple Rules Risk Assessment-SRRA, ADNEX model with and without CA125 and O-RADS). A total of 133 adnexal masses were studied (benign: 66.2%, n:88; malignant: 33.8%, n:45) in a sample of women with mean age 56.5 ± 7.8 years. Malignant lesions were identified by SA in all cases. Borderline ovarian tumors (n:13) were not always detected by some US scores (SRRA: 76.9%, ADNEX model without and with CA125: 76.9% and 84.6%) nor were serous carcinoma (n:19) (SRRA: 89.5%), clear cell carcinoma (n:9) (SRRA: 66.7%) or endometrioid carcinoma (n:4) (ADNEX model without CA125: 75.0%). While most teratomas and serous cystadenomas have been correctly differentiated, other benign lesions were misclassified because of the presence of solid areas or papillae. Fibromas (n:13) were better identified by SA (23.1% malignancy), but worse with the other US scores (SRRA: 69.2%, ADNEX model without and with CA125: 84.6% and 69.2%, O-RADS: 53.8%). Cystoadenofibromas (n:10) were difficult to distinguish from malignant masses via all scores except SRRA (SA: 70.0%, SRRA: 20.0%, ADNEX model without and with CA125: 60.0% and 50.0%, O-RADS: 90.0%). Mucinous cystadenomas (n:12) were misdiagnosed as malignant in more than 15% of the cases in all US scores (SA: 33.3%, SRRA: 16.7%, ADNEX model without and with CA125: 16.7% and 16.7%, O-RADS:41.7%). Brenner tumors are also difficult to classify using all scores. Some malignant masses (borderline ovarian tumors, serous carcinoma, clear cell carcinoma, endometrioid carcinomas) are not always detected by US scores. Fibromas, cystoadenofibromas, some mucinous cystadenomas and Brenner tumors may present solid components/papillae that may induce confusion with malignant lesions. Most teratomas and serous cystadenomas are usually correctly classified.

Evaluation of the incorporation of an IOTA-ADNEX model in the discrimination of adnexal masses in our third-level hospital centre, taking into account the menopausal status of patients. Five years of experience

ObjectiveThe objectives were to estimate the performance of the IOTA-ADNEX model test after its incorporation into the ultrasound tests of our third-grade hospital gynecology service, as well as to assess whether its capacity of accuracy is modified when taking into account the patient's menopausal status. MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted to clinically evaluate the diagnostic performance of the IOTA-ADNEX model test, which was performed between January 2016 and December 2021. The study included 573 women with an adnexal injury who underwent surgical excision within 180 days after ultrasound diagnosis and histological confirmation (gold standard). After the ultrasound exam, the injuries were classified using the ADNEX model. The study estimated the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model for classifying between benign and malignant adnexal masses and compared the performance by menopausal state. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for different cut-off points. ResultsOut of the 573 women, 183 (31.9%) had a malignant tumor. The AUC of the ADNEX model for differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal masses at the time of ultrasound examination was 0.92 and the best malignancy threshold, detected by Youden index, was 22.5%. At this cut-off, the sensitivity of the ADNEX model was 91.8% and the specificity was 76.4%. However, it varies according to menopausal status: in the group of pre-menopausal patient, sensitivity was 86.1% (95% CI, 85.4%–86.8%) and specificity was 81.3% (95% CI, 85.4%–86.8%). In the postmenopausal group, sensitivity was 96.1% (95% CI, 95.6%–96.7%) and specificity was 68.5% (95% CI, 68.1%–68.8%). ConclusionsThe IOTA-ADNEX model is a reliable diagnostic tool to discard ovarian cancer. However, the accuracy of the test, at the same cut-off point, varies according to the menopausal state of the patient so it may be important to take it into account when taking decisions in clinical practice.

Ultrasound Features and Ultrasound Scores in the Differentiation between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses

Background: Several ultrasound (US) features help ultrasound experts in the classification of benign vs. malignant adnexal masses. US scores serve in this differentiation, but they all have misdiagnoses. The main objective of this study is to evaluate what ultrasound characteristics are associated with malignancy influencing ultrasound scores. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of ultrasound features of adnexal lesions of women managed surgically. Ultrasound characteristics were analyzed, and masses were classified by subjective assessment of the ultrasonographer (SA) and other ultrasound scores (IOTA Simple Rules Risk Assessment SRRA, ADNEX model, and O-RADS). Results: Of a total of 187 adnexal masses studied, 134 were benign (71.7%) and 53 were malignant (28.3%). SA, IOTA SRRA, ADNEX model with or without CA125 and O-RADS had high levels of sensitivity (93.9%, 81.1%, 94.3%, 88.7%, 98.1%) but lower specificity (80.2%, 82.1%, 82.8%, 77.6%, 73.1%) with similar AUC (0.87, 0.87, 0.92, 0.90, 0.86). Ultrasound features significantly related with malignancy were the presence of irregular contour, absence of acoustic shadowing, vascularized solid areas, ≥1 papillae, vascularized septum, and moderate-severe ascites. Conclusion: IOTA SRRA, ADNEX model, and O-RADS can help in the classification of benign and malignant masses. Certain ultrasound characteristics studied in ultrasound scores are associated with malignancy.

P-757 The classification and management of adnexal masses identified during pregnancy

Abstract Study question How do we classify adnexal masses (ovarian cysts) identified during pregnancy and how should we manage them? Summary answer Adnexal masses (ovarian cysts) should be managed expectantly in pregnancy, given the low rate of complications and low prevalence of malignancy. What is known already Conservative management of adnexal masses (ovarian cysts) is preferable during pregnancy, due to the maternal and fetal risks associated with surgery. Accurate diagnosis is key to safe expectant management. Various ultrasound-based models exist to classify adnexal masses; however, none have been validated for use in pregnancy. Adnexal mass morphology can change during pregnancy due to decidualisation, which is often difficult to distinguish from underlying neoplastic processes. We aim to evaluate:(1) the performance of current methods of adnexal mass classification in pregnancy, (2) understand the natural course of adnexal masses in pregnancy, particularly the presence of decidualisation and incidence of complications. Study design, size, duration Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data between January 2017- November 2022. To classify adnexal masses (ovarian cysts), we evaluated: Expert subjective assessment (SA), IOTA Simple Rules (SR) and the IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias of the Adnexa (ADNEX) model. The end point was either the histological examination of tissue removed at surgery or the subjective classification of adnexal masses at the postnatal scan in women managed conservatively. Participants/materials, setting, methods Women with an adnexal mass identified on gynaecological ultrasound in pregnancy at a tertiary London University Hospital were included. Relevant clinical data was extracted, including age, gestation and cyst-related complications. Adnexal masses were classified at the first antenatal and postnatal ultrasound examination according to SA, SR and the ADNEX model (10% risk of malignancy cut off) and correlated to histology for adnexal masses managed surgically. IOTA simple descriptors were used to classify benign adnexal masses. Main results and the role of chance 254 women (median age 33-years old, range:18-49) with an adnexal mass/cyst were included at a median gestation of 12 weeks, (range:4-36). 13 (5.1%) conceived through assisted reproductive techniques. Spontaneous resolution occurred in 24.5% of cases, and 21 were lost to follow up (8.3%). According to Simple Descriptors, 38.6% were simple, 22.0% were endometriomas and 19.7% were dermoid cysts. Antenatally, SA outperformed ADNEX, based on specificity (94.6 vs.92.2%) and sensitivity (60 vs.55.6%) respectively. SA and ADNEX had a negative predictive value(NPV) of 96.1% and 98.3% respectively. Postnatally, SA had a higher sensitivity than ADNEX (75 vs.50%), but a lower specificity (94.1 vs.96.9%). SA and ADNEX had a NPV of 94.1% and 97.5% respectively. Three (1.3%) underwent acute surgery during pregnancy: one ovarian torsion (9/40), and two cyst ruptures (11/40, 30/40). Presumed decidualisation occurred in 29.5% of endometriomas. Three (1.3%) underwent cyst removal during caesarean section, two for suspicion of BOTs (one had suspected decidualisation) and one for patient preference. On histology, the suspected decidualised mass was a serous BOT, and the suspected BOT was a struma ovarii. In the postnatal period (12 weeks), four underwent surgery for suspicion of BOTs, two were confirmed BOTs and two were benign cystadenomas on histology. Limitations, reasons for caution The dataset as expected contains a relatively small number of malignancies (prevalence 3.9%) and so any analysis of test performance to discriminate between benign and malignant disease must be interpreted with caution. A larger prospective multicentre study is needed to do this. Wider implications of the findings Our data suggest that a number of cysts in pregnancy will resolve, a few will be associated with acute complications and the risk of malignancy is very low. Accordingly, the study supports an expectant management approach for adnexal masses (ovarian cysts) detected in pregnancy. Trial registration number Not applicable

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of O-RADS Ultrasound and O-RADS MRI for Risk Assessment of Ovarian and Adnexal Lesions.

BACKGROUND. O-RADS ultrasound (US) and O-RADS MRI have been developed to standardize risk stratification of ovarian and adnexal lesions. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic performance of O-RADS US and O-RADS MRI for risk stratification of ovarian and adnexal lesions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. We searched the Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar databases from January 1, 2020, until October 31, 2022, for studies reporting on the performance of O-RADS US or O-RADS MRI in the diagnosis of malignancy of ovarian or adnexal lesions. Study quality was assessed with QUADAS-2. A hierarchic summary ROC model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Q statistic. Metaregression analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. O-RADS US was compared with the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules and Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) model in studies providing head-to-head comparisons. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Twenty-six studies comprising 9520 patients were included. O-RADS US was evaluated in 15 and O-RADS MRI in 12 studies; both systems were evaluated in one of the studies. Quality assessment revealed that risk of bias or concern about applicability most commonly related to patient selection. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of O-RADS US were 95% (95% CI, 91-97%) and 82% (95% CI, 76-87%) and of O-RADS MRI were 95% (95% CI, 92-97%) and 90% (95% CI, 84-94%). Analysis with the Q statistic revealed significant heterogeneity among studies of O-RADS US in both sensitivity and specificity (both p < .001) and among studies of O-RADS MRI in specificity (p < .001) but not sensitivity (p = .07). In metaregression, no factor was significantly associated with sensitivity or specificity of either system (all p > .05). O-RADS US showed no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity versus IOTA simple rules in four studies (sensitivity, 96% vs 93%; specificity, 76% vs 82%) or versus the ADNEX model in three studies (sensitivity, 96% vs 96%; specificity, 79% vs 78%). CONCLUSION. O-RADS US and O-RADS MRI both have high sensitivity for ovarian or adnexal malignancy. O-RADS MRI, but not O-RADS US, also has high specificity. CLINICAL IMPACT. Awareness of the diagnostic performance results regarding O-RADS US and O-RADS MRI will be helpful as these systems are increasingly implemented into clinical practice.

Comparison of performance between O-RADS, IOTA simple rules risk assessment and ADNEX model in the discrimination of ovarian Brenner tumors.

To describe the clinical and sonographic features of ovarian benign Brenner tumor (BBT) and malignant Brenner tumor (MBT), and to compare performance of four diagnostic models in differentiating them. Fifteen patients with BBTs and nine patients with MBTs were retrospectively identified in our institution from January 2003 and December 2021. One ultrasound examiner categorized each mass according to ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS), international ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules Risk (SR-Risk) assessment and assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) models with/without CA125. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to compare diagnostic performance. Patients with MBT had higher CA125 serum level (62.5% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.009) and larger maximum diameter of lesion (89mm vs. 43mm, P = 0.009) than did those with BBT. BBT tended to have higher prevalence of calcifications (100% vs. 55.6%, P = 0.012) and acoustic shadowing (93.3% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.004), and lower color scores manifesting none or minimal flow (100.0% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.001). Areas under curves of O-RADS, IOTA SR-Risk and ADNEX models with/without CA125 were 0.896, 0.913, 0.892 and 0.896, respectively. There were no significant differences between them. BBTs are often small solid tumors with sparse color Doppler signals, which contain calcifications with posterior acoustic shadowing. The most common pattern of MBT is a large multilocular-solid or solid mass with irregular tumor borders, and most were moderately or richly vascularized at color Doppler. These four models have excellent performance in distinguishing them.

Comparison of ultrasound-based ADNEX model with magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating adnexal masses: a multi-center study.

The ADNEX model offered a good diagnostic performance for discriminating adnexal tumors, but research comparing the abilities of the ADNEX model and MRI for characterizing adnexal tumors has not been reported to our knowledge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the ultrasound-based ADNEX (Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) model in comparison with that of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating benign, borderline and malignant adnexal masses. This prospective study included 529 women with adnexal masses who underwent assessment via the ADNEX model and subjective MRI analysis before surgical treatment between October 2019 and April 2022 at two hospitals. Postoperative histological diagnosis was considered the gold standard. Among the 529 women, 92 (17.4%) masses were diagnosed histologically as malignant tumors, 67 (12.7%) as borderline tumors, and 370 (69.9%) as benign tumors. For the diagnosis of malignancy, including borderline tumors, overall agreement between the ADNEX model and MRI pre-operation was 84.9%. The sensitivity of the ADNEX model of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-0.95) was similar to that of MRI (0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.94; P=0.717). However, the ADNEX model had a higher specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.87-0.93) than MRI (0.81, 95% CI: 0.77-0.85; P=0.001). The greatest sensitivity (0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-0.99) and specificity (0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.96) were achieved by combining the ADNEX model and subjective MRI assessment. While the total diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly between the two methods (P=0.059), the ADNEX model showed greater diagnostic accuracy for borderline tumors (P<0.001). The ultrasound-based ADNEX model demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance for adnexal tumors, especially borderline tumors, compared with MRI. Accordingly, we recommend that the ADNEX model, alone or with subjective MRI assessment, should be used for pre-operative assessment of adnexal masses.

“UTILITY OF IOTA ADNEX MODEL IN PRE-OPERATIVE EVALUATION OF ADNEXAL MASSES WITH HPE CO-RELATION IN FEMALES BETWEEN 30-70 YEARS IN TERTIARY CARE CENTRE OF CENTRAL INDIA”

1. Objectives: Ÿ To prove that there is a role of IOTA ADNEX model in preoperative evaluation of adnexal masses. 2. Conclusion And Results: Ÿ In our study, out of 65 patients, most of the patients were ≤50 years of age. Age was statistically signicant with HPE (p0.032). Ÿ We found that, most of the patients had family history in Malignant group compared to Benign group but this was not statistically signicant (p-0.951). Ÿ Our study showed that, a greater number of patients had more than 10 locules in Malignant group compared to Benign group though it was not statistically signicant (p-0.87). Ÿ Higher number of patients had Ascites in Malignant group compared to Benign group which was statistically signicant (p&lt;0.001). Ÿ More number of patients had Post Acoustic Shadowing in Malignant group compared to Benign group which was statistically signicant (p&lt;0.001). Ÿ It was found that, the mean CA 125 U/mL was higher in Malignant group compared to Benign group it was statistically signicant (p&lt;0.001). Ÿ The mean Lesion Diameter (mm) was more in Malignant group compared to Benign group but this was not statistically signicant (p-0.701). Ÿ We showed that, the mean Solid Component Size (mm) was more in Malignant group compared to Benign group which was statistically signicant (p&lt;0.001). Ÿ The mean number of Papillary Projections was more in Malignant group compared to Benign group which was statistically signicant (p-0.005). Ÿ We observed that, majority of lesions which were categorized as malignant by IOTA ADNEX model turned out to be malignant and benign lesions turned out to be benign on HPE, it was statistically signicant (p-0.0001). 3. Inference: IOTA ADNEX MODEL proved to be a useful tool in early detection of adnexal lesions and differentiating them into beningn and malignant groups. The discriminating performance of ovarian tumors with the IOTA-ADNEX model has been better than other existing models. In 2014, ADNEX model was developed. The ADNEX model helps in differentiation of benign from malignant by using 9 predictors, 3 of them are clinical (age, CA 125 and type of centre) and rest 6 are sonographic variables (maximal diameter of lesion, proportion of solid tissue, more than 10 cyst locules, no. of papillary projections, acoustic shadow and ascites. This study aimed to test reliability of these risks prediction models to improve the performance of pelvic ultrasound and discriminate between benign and malignant lesions. Association of results of IOTA ADNEX model with HPE was statistically signicant (p&lt;0.0001)

Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound-Based International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model for Predicting Malignancy in Women with Ovarian Tumors: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Comparative performance of various ultrasound models in diagnosing ovarian lesions has not been adequately studied. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) models in women with ovarian lesions. Women 18-80 years, with an ovarian lesion planned for surgery were recruited in this prospective observational cohort study. Preoperative risk stratification was done by both IOTA simple rules and the ADNEX model. The diagnostic performance of both models was estimated using histopathology as the gold standard. A total of 90 women were recruited into the study. The IOTA simple rules were applicable to 77 (85.5%) participants and the ADNEX model on 100% women. Both the simple rules and the ADNEX model had good diagnostic performance. The sensitivity and specificity of the IOTA simple rules for predicting malignancy was 66.6% and 91%, while that of the ADNEXA model was 80% and 94%, respectively. The maximum diagnostic accuracy for prediction of both benign and malignant tumors was obtained when cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) was combined with the IOTA ADNEX model (91.0%), but for Stage I malignancy, the maximum diagnostic accuracy was for ADNEX without CA-125 (91.0%). Both the IOTA models have a good diagnostic accuracy and are of paramount importance in differentiating benign from malignant tumors and predicting the stage of the malignant disease.

Comparison of Ultrasound Scores in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses

Subjective ultrasound assessment by an expert examiner is meant to be the best option for the differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Different ultrasound scores can help in the classification, but whether one of them is significantly better than others is still a matter of debate. The main aim of this work is to compare the diagnostic performance of some of these scores in the evaluation of adnexal masses in the same set of patients. This is a retrospective study of a consecutive series of women diagnosed as having a persistent adnexal mass and managed surgically. Ultrasound characteristics were analyzed according to IOTA criteria. Masses were classified according to the subjective impression of the sonographer and other ultrasound scores (IOTA simple rules -SR-, IOTA simple rules risk assessment -SRRA-, O-RADS classification, and ADNEX model -with and without CA125 value-). A total of 122 women were included. Sixty-two women were postmenopausal (50.8%). Eighty-one women had a benign mass (66.4%), and 41 (33.6%) had a malignant tumor. The sensitivity of subjective assessment, IOTA SR, IOTA SRRA, and ADNEX model with or without CA125 and O-RADS was 87.8%, 66.7%, 78.1%, 95.1%, 87.8%, and 90.2%, respectively. The specificity for these approaches was 69.1%, 89.2%, 72.8%, 74.1%, 67.9%, and 60.5%, respectively. All methods with similar AUC (0.81, 0.78, 0.80, 0.88, 0.84, and 0.75, respectively). We concluded that IOTA SR, IOTA SRRA, and ADNEX models with or without CA125 and O-RADS can help in the differentiation of benign and malignant masses, and their performance is similar to the subjective assessment of an experienced sonographer.

Performance of IOTA Simple Rules Risks, ADNEX Model, Subjective Assessment Compared to CA125 and HE4 with ROMA Algorithm in Discriminating between Benign, Borderline and Stage I Malignant Adnexal Lesions.

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) and early clinical stage malignant adnexal masses can make sonographic diagnosis challenging, while the clinical utility of tumor markers, e.g., CA125 and HE4, or the ROMA algorithm, remains controversial in such cases. To compare the IOTA group Simple Rules Risk (SRR), the ADNEX model and the subjective assessment (SA) with serum CA125, HE4 and the ROMA algorithm in the preoperative discrimination between benign tumors, BOTs and stage I malignant ovarian lesions (MOLs). A multicenter retrospective study was conducted with lesions classified prospectively using subjective assessment and tumor markers with the ROMA. The SRR assessment and ADNEX risk estimation were applied retrospectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-) were calculated for all tests. In total, 108 patients (the median age: 48 yrs, 44 postmenopausal) with 62 (79.6%) benign masses, 26 (24.1%) BOTs and 20 (18.5%) stage I MOLs were included. When comparing benign masses with combined BOTs and stage I MOLs, SA correctly identified 76% of benign masses, 69% of BOTs and 80% of stage I MOLs. Significant differences were found for the presence and size of the largest solid component (p = 0.0006), the number of papillary projections (p = 0.01), papillation contour (p = 0.008) and IOTA color score (p = 0.0009). The SRR and ADNEX models were characterized by the highest sensitivity (80% and 70%, respectively), whereas the highest specificity was found for SA (94%). The corresponding likelihood ratios were as follows: LR+ = 3.59 and LR- = 0.43 for the ADNEX; LR+ = 6.40 and LR- = 0.63 for SA and LR+ = 1.85 with LR- = 0.35 for the SRR. The sensitivity and specificity of the ROMA test were 50% and 85%, respectively, with LR+ = 3.44 and LR- = 0.58. Of all the tests, the ADNEX model had the highest diagnostic accuracy of 76%. This study demonstrates the limited value of diagnostics based on CA125 and HE4 serum tumor markers and the ROMA algorithm as independent modalities for the detection of BOTs and early stage adnexal malignant tumors in women. SA and IOTA methods based on ultrasound examination may present superior value over tumor marker assessment.

O-RADS Classification for Ultrasound Assessment of Adnexal Masses: Agreement between IOTA Lexicon and ADNEX Model for Assigning Risk Group

The O-RADS system is a new proposal for establishing the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses using ultrasound. The objective of this study is to assess the agreement and diagnostic performance of O-RADS when using the IOTA lexicon or ADNEX model for assigning the O-RADS risk group. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. All women diagnosed as having an adnexal mass underwent transvaginal/transabdominal ultrasound. Adnexal masses were classified according to the O-RADS classification, using the criterion of the IOTA lexicon and according to the risk of malignancy determined by the ADNEX model. The agreement between both methods for assigning the O-RADS group was estimated using weighted Kappa and the percentage of agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of both approaches were calculated. 454 adnexal masses in 412 women were evaluated during the study period. There were 64 malignant masses. The agreement between the two approaches was moderate (Kappa: 0.47), and the percentage of agreement was 46%. Most disagreements occurred for the groups O-RADS 2 and 3 and for groups O-RADS 3 and 4. The sensitivity and specificity for O-RADS using the IOTA lexicon and O-RADS using the ADNEX model were 92.2% and 86.1%, and 85.9% and 87.4%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of O-RADS classification using the IOTA lexicon as opposed to the IOTA ADNEX model is similar. However, O-RADS group assignment varies significantly, depending on the use of the IOTA lexicon or the risk estimation using the ADNEX model. This fact might be clinically relevant and deserves further research.

Accuracy of IOTA Simple Rules, IOTA ADNEX Model, RMI, and Subjective Assessment for Preoperative Adnexal Mass Evaluation: The Experience of a Tertiary Care Referral Hospital

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of IOTA Simple Rules (SR), IOTA ADNEX model, Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), and subjective assessment (SA) which is used for adnexal mass assessment in our institution. Design: This is a prospective observational study. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods: We included patients with at least one adnexal mass who needed elective surgical evaluation based on clinical and laboratory findings. Patients admitted to Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Clinical Center of Serbia, were recruited for the study between January 2019 and June 2021. Level II ultrasonographers performed a gray scale and Doppler exam for each patient. Preoperative classification of adnexal masses (benign or malignant) was performed by SA, the International Ovarian Analysis Group (IOTA) SR, IOTA ADNEX model, and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI). Postoperatively obtained histological findings were used as a reference. Results: During the study period, we enrolled 179 premenopausal and 217 postmenopausal patients, representing 396 patients in our sample. Prevalence of malignant disease in pre- and postmenopausal groups was 16.2% (29/179) and 41% (89/217), respectively. Malignant disease was diagnosed in 29.8% (118/396) of patients. SA achieved the highest discrimination accuracy between benign and malignant tumors (area under the curve [AUC] of 0.928, 95% CI [0.898–0.952]). For SA, the overall diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR−) were 91.4%, 88.1%, 92.8%, 12.25, and 0.13. The AUC for Simple Rules with subjective assessment in inconclusive cases (SR + SA) was 0.912 (95% CI [0.880–0.938]). Regarding SR + SA, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR− were 92.4%, 88.1%, 94.2%, 15.31, and 0.13. The ADNEX model had the AUC of 0.914 (95% CI [0.882–0.940]). Binary classification using the ADNEX model at a cut-off value of 10% for malignancy had the sensitivity, specificity, LR+ and LR− of 92.4%, 73.0%, 3.42, and 0.10. This resulted in the lowest overall accuracy of 78.8%. The AUC for RMI was 0.854 (95% CI [0.815–0.887]), with overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, LR+ and LR− of 82.3%, 73.7%, 86.0%, 5.26, and 0.31. There was no difference in the AUCs of the SA and IOTA models for the whole group, premenopausal, and postmenopausal groups. RMI performed worse compared to SA and the IOTA models. The ADNEX model achieved the highest accuracy at the cut-off value of 35%. Limitations: The data generalizability is limited by a single institution-dependent sampling. Conclusions: The IOTA SR and ADNEX model were reliable and comparable with the SA and performed better than the RMI. The IOTA SR model offers the potential for immediate and reliable diagnosis, even in the hands of less experienced ultrasonographers. Both IOTA models studied can be a valuable adjunct to a clinician’s decision-making process.

The comparison of IOTA Simple Rules, ADNEX Model, and RMI prediction models used in the diagnosis of ovarian tumours

The comparison of IOTA Simple Rules, ADNEX Model, and RMI prediction models used in the diagnosis of ovarian tumours

Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 for identifying early-stage ovarian cancer

ObjectiveThis work was designed to investigate the performance of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) ADNEX (Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa) model combined with human epithelial protein 4 (HE4) for early ovarian cancer (OC) detection.MethodsA total of 376 women who were hospitalized and operated on in Women and Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were selected. Ultrasonographic images, cancer antigen-125 (CA 125) levels, and HE4 levels were obtained. All cases were analyzed and the histopathological diagnosis serves as the reference standard. Based on the IOTA ADNEX model post-processing software, the risk prediction value was calculated. We analyzed receiver operating characteristic curves to determine whether the IOTA ADNEX model alone or combined with HE4 provided better diagnostic accuracy.ResultsThe area under the curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model alone or combined with HE4 in predicting benign and malignant ovarian tumors was 0.914 (95% CI, 0.881–0.941) and 0.916 (95% CI, 0.883–0.942), respectively. With the cutoff risk of 10%, the ADNEX model had a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87–0.97) and a specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67–0.78), while combined with HE4, it had a sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84–0.95) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76–0.86). The IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 was better at improving the accuracy of the differential diagnosis between different OCs than the IOTA ADNEX model alone. A significant difference was found in separating borderline masses from Stage II–IV OC (p = 0.0257).ConclusionsA combination of the IOTA ADNEX model and HE4 can improve the specificity of diagnosis of ovarian benign and malignant tumors and increase the sensitivity and effectiveness of the differential diagnosis of Stage II–IV OC and borderline tumors.

OP07.04: Preoperative identification of borderline ovarian tumours using the IOTA terminology and ADNEX model

OP07.04: Preoperative identification of borderline ovarian tumours using the IOTA terminology and ADNEX model

OP07.08: O‐RADS classification for ultrasound assessment of adnexal masses: agreement between IOTA lexicon and ADNEX model

OP07.08: O‐RADS classification for ultrasound assessment of adnexal masses: agreement between IOTA lexicon and ADNEX model

The Optimal Cut-Off Point of the ADNEX Model for the Prediction of the Ovarian Cancer Risk

Objective: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and determine the optimal cut-off point of the ADNEX model in women presenting with a pelvic or adnexal tumor. Method: All women presented with adnexal mass and were scheduled for operation at Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy Hospital and Hue Central Hospital, Vietnam during June 2019 – May 2021 were included and categorized according to their histopathologic reports into ovarian cancer groups and benign ovarian tumor groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore for potential predictors. The ADNEX model with and without CA125 was used to assess the risk of ovarian cancer preoperative. The goldden standard to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography using the ADNEX model was the pathological report. In addition, the accuracy as well as optimum cut-off point of the ADNEX model was estimated with and without CA125. Results: A total of 461 participants were included in analysis and predictive model development, 65 patients in ovarian cancer group and 361 in benign tumor group. The ADNEX model combined with CA125 proved to be a useful predictor with an area under ROC of 0.961 (0.940 – 0.977) with Youden’s index of 0.8395, p < 0.001. The ADNEX model without CA125 also had high predictive value between benign and malignant tumors, with an area under ROC of 0.956 (0.933 – 0.973) with Youden’s index of 0.8551, p < 0.001. Cut-off of the ADNEX with CA125 was 13.5 and without CA125 was 13.1 for sensitivities were 90.8 (81.0 – 96.5) and 93.9 (85.0 – 97.5), specificities 93.2 (90.2 – 95.5) and 91.67 (88.5 – 94.2). The difference in the predictive value of malignancy-risk between the ADNEX model with CA125, without CA125 was not statistically significant, p=0.4883. Conclusion: The ADNEX model, with or without the combining marker CA 125, provides a valuable predictive value for ovarian tumor malignancy preoperative.

Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.

Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.